Terrorism?

[CptSternn]

U.S. judge sets bail for anti-Castro Cuban exile

http://news.**********/s/nm/20070407...Mqs3kzbHv2_sEF

EL PASO, Texas (Reuters) - A United States judge said on Friday Cuban exile and former CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles should be freed on bail until his trial on immigration fraud charges, but he remained behind bars at the request of federal prosecutors.

Judge Kathleen Cardone said in a written order 79-year-old Posada Carriles, despite "a controversial past" as an opponent of Cuban leader
Fidel Castro, was not a flight risk because he is "old, infirm and has strong ties to the community."

She set bail at a total of $350,000 and said Posada Carriles must wear an electronic monitoring device and live under house arrest with his wife in Miami.

He was not immediately released because prosecutors asked that he be detained while they consider an appeal to a higher court. His attorney, Felipe Millan, told Reuters he hoped to get Posada Carriles out of jail by the end of next week.

Posada Carriles, who took part in the failed 1962 Bay of Pigs invasion against Castro, is wanted for trial in Cuba and Venezuela on charges he planned the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed 73 people. He is also accused of tourist bombings in Havana in 1997.

Posada Carriles has been in U.S. custody in El Paso since May 2005 after entering the country illegally seeking asylum.

The U.S. government has fought his asylum request, but does not want to hand him over to Cuba or Venezuela on the grounds that he would not receive a fair trial and could be killed.

He has been a political problem for the Bush administration because his past activities are viewed as terrorism by his opponents, but he is a hero to many in the politically powerful Cuban exile community in the U.S.

The government tried to find another country to take Posada Carriles, but none would accept him. He was indicted in January on seven counts of immigration fraud and is scheduled to be tried on May 11 in El Paso.


For those who have missed this story over the past couple of years, here it is, again. The bush admin is still keeping this off the front page.

The article pretty much sums it up. A CIA operative was ordered to kill as many civilians in Cuba as possible - got caught. The U.S. is refusing to extradite him claiming 'he wont get a fair trial'.

I'd say his trial would be no less-bias than the recent one involving men who were recently given 20 year sentences for their reading selection in Northern Virginia.

Since when did extraditing a terrorist who blew up a plane and a packed holiday resort become an issue?

Oh yeah, when its one that did it for America, because you know, it's only wrong to commit acts of terrorism when they are directed at Americans or their allies. Blowing up women and children in countries that the bush administration doesn't care for is not a crime and shouldn't be treated in the same manner as when the same innocent people die in say the U.S. or britian.

Yet another dubious double standard in America, and another message to the world about how bush really feels about terrorism.

[CptSternn]

Another side note on this topic...

As the article states - this man worked for the CIA for decades. Once the U.S. was through with him, they left him behind to be killed by the very people the U.S. claimed to be fighting.

Was it because he outlived his usefulness or was it because if his actions became known to the public (i.e. U.S. government actively participating in bombing holiday resorts as recently as 1997) that people might not be so keen on that, considering the whole 'war on terror' that bush set into motion?

Bottom line is this - former operative or not, if the U.S. government sanctions your actions now, but has a policy change later - you will be left 'out in the cold'. When it comes to the welfare of the people it's supposed to be protecting and it's public image, well, you see who wins.

The fact they even arrested this man and held him secretly for such a long time trying to keep the media from knowing about this whole ordeal speaks volumes.

It boggles the mind to think people would work for such a government or organisation whos value of life changes with policy and public approval ratings, and who would rather see its own personnel killed than have them tell the world of their illegal and immoral actions.

[Binkie]

I'll go ahead and debunk much of this thread for fun:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The bush admin is still keeping this off the front page.

Which is obvious due to the paramount interest this story has to the average American and the fact that President George W. Bush personally runs the Associated Press and dictates the order of news stories in every single publication that gets exposure.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

A CIA operative was ordered to kill as many civilians in Cuba as possible - got caught.

Luis Carriles was trained in the use of explosives to serve as a CIA asset in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Obviously no one refers to Mujahideen fighters who fought in Afghanistan or Contras in Nicaragua as CIA operatives. No one refers to Jorge Mas Canosa as a former CIA operative, yet he had the same background, function, training, and career in terrorism as Carriles.

Secondly Carriles set up and allegedly planned the Cuban airline bombings through his own private security firm in Venezuela. From 1967-1974 he served as the Director of Counter Intelligence for Venezuela's DISIP, the country's federal law enforcement agency. Yet no one mentions that. Hmmm... After he left that he started his own security firm and coordinated with Orlando Bosch to place bombs on the Cuban aircraft via two members of his own security firm. These plots were not "ordered" by anyone from any government.

Same goes for the tourism bombings. Carriles stated that he was trying to get media exposure through these acts by hitting Cuba's tourism trade, something the US government doesn't even have a real interest in.

Carriles only took orders durring the Bay of Pigs invasion plan, which he didn't see any action in. After that he did all of the "ordering" himself in carrying out these various bombings.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Since when did extraditing a terrorist who blew up a plane and a packed holiday resort become an issue?

Which is a funny quote coming from a guy that vehemently opposes the act by US authorities and fully supports the Irish government in not extraditing the infamous Colombian Three. Why? They're IRA members. Hypocrisy is great when it's coming from someone who's trying to stand on the moral high round in the middle of a mudslide.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Oh yeah, when its one that did it for America, because you know, it's only wrong to commit acts of terrorism when they are directed at Americans or their allies. Blowing up women and children in countries that the bush administration doesn't care for is not a crime and shouldn't be treated in the same manner as when the same innocent people die in say the U.S. or britian.

Right. As is obvious by the fact that the United States designates various insurgent groups in countries like Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization) and Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) with intent to overthrow the central government as terrorist organizations. Also why organizations in countries like Israel and Colombia that serve US interests by attacking other terrorist elements are also designated as terrorist organizations by the United States government. Right... right...

[CptSternn]

Just yesterday the CIA released a multitude of documents detailing their actions back in the 60's and 70's.

http://news.**********/s/ap/cia_fami...LkWMkVPJLMWM0F

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070622...U6tVIIg2es0NUE

The documents reveal dozens of assassination plots, some which were successful, dozens of coup attempts, also a few succssful ones, drug testing on average American citizens, spying on anti-war and civil rights leaders, and much more.

They say that these 'new revelations' show a 'bad period' in their history, and that they don't do this sort of thing anymore.

Anyone else find that hard to believe? I mean, they refer to these documents, which on one hand they call bad, but refer to them as 'family jewels', like they are proud of em.

The one thing every plot has in common is this - they all can be defined as acts of terrorism against the governments they were perputrated against.

It's funny to see America, which is so anti-terrorist now releasing documents showing for two decades they supported worldwide terrorism and funded it. The supported spying on their own citizens, and attempted to limit rights within their own borders.

[Circle V]

What do you propose we do about it? And how is it different from what, say, the KGB has done?

The CIA will never refer to its own operations as acts of terrorism. It would be idiotic to expect them to own up to it. If they were to do so, the good will generated by their honesty would be overwhelmed by the masses who would seize on headlines like "THE CIA ADMITS TO BEING A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION!"

The word "terrorism" has lost its original meanings and is just a shell for negative connotations, just like "Communism."

[CptSternn]

I'd say there should be more oversight into the actions of the secret police into America. I mean, if the CIA is actively supporting terrorists worldwide while at the same time in a 'war on terror', how exactly are they supposed to win?

Anyway, here is some updated info from the wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

For those wondering, the US dropped all charges against him, claiming 'technical reasons' and he is now free running around America.

Of course, this should not surprise anyone. America supports terrorists, as long as they only attack countries America doesn't like. Then it's called patriotism.

I mean, what do you expect from the country that engaged in the biggest act of terrorism in the history of mankind?

Most people tend to forget the end of WW2, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

America dropped two nuclear bombs on heavily populated cities. Not military bases, not 'insurgents', but average citizens, men women, and children.

...the committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized...


The question is then, America decided it could quickly end a war by using a nuclear weapon on two cities, and then threatening to use more.

So if say another country involved in the 'war on terror' decides to use nukes on two US cities, then claims, hey, it was stop all the needless killing in Iraq, would that be justified?

I mean, the Americans already have used that tactic, and still threaten countries today with them (when asked about using nukes on Iran the bush regime continues to say all options are on the table).

The only country in the world to ever kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a terrorist attack was America.

[ArtificialOne]

Really, whos paying your bills stern.. I smell a "for profit" pundit here... who hands you your talking points Mr. Mercenary. Yeah I said it...